Safety

FAA Safety
January/February 2017
BRIEFING
Your source for general aviation news and information
PAVEing
the Way to
Safety
Say Ahh ... P 11
A Pilot’s Guide to Self-Assessing Risk
Is My Aircraft Right for Flight? P 16
The Importance of Preflight Prep
The Wild (Not So Blue) Yonder
Mitigating Risks in the Environment P 20
Are We There Yet?
How External Pressures Can Affect Your Flight P 23
Federal Aviation
Administration
faa.gov/news/safety_briefing
@FAASafetyBrief

FAA Safety Briefing is the FAA safety policy voice of non-commercial general aviation.
The January/February 2017 issue of FAA Safety Briefing focuses on aviation risk
management and aeronautical decision making. Featured content follows the
framework of the PAVE checklist, covering a pilot’s decision making process to
mitigate risks in terms of the: Pilot, Aircraft, enVironment, and External Pressures.
Cover photo by Paul Cianciolo
20
12
23
16
Features
7 Sharing the Wealth ASAP Expansion Improves Airspace Safety for All
by Bryan Burns
8 Risky Business The What, How, and Why of Risk Management
by Susan Parson
12 Say Ahh ... A Pilot’s Guide to Self-Assessing Risk
by Tom Hoffmann
16 Is My Aircraft Right for Flight? The Importance of Preflight Prep
by Jennifer Caron
18 Bring the Heat How to Avoid Induction Icing
by Dr. Dave Swartz
20 The Wild (Not So Blue) Yonder Mitigating Risk in the Flight Operating Environment
by James Williams
23 Are We There Yet? How External Pressures Can Affect Your Flight
by Paul Cianciolo
Departments
1 Jumpseat – an executive policy perspective
2 ATIS – GA news and current events
5 Aeromedical Advisory – a checkup on all things aeromedical
6 Ask Medical Certification – Q&A on medical certification issues
26 Checklist – FAA resources and safety reminders
27 Nuts, Bolts, and Electrons – GA maintenance issues
29 Angle of Attack – GA safety strategies
30 Vertically Speaking – safety issues for rotorcraft pilots
31 Flight Forum – letters from the Safety Briefing mailbag
32 Postflight – an editor’s perspective
Inside back cover FAA Faces – FAA employee profile

Jumpseat
JOHN DUNCAN
DIRECTOR, FLIGHT STANDARDS SERVICE
Mistakes (Don't) “Just Happen”
In the November/December issue of FAA Safety
Briefing, I wrote about the cultural and structural
changes that the FAA Flight Standards Service is
making to improve the way we operate.
To support our cultural changes, members of my
senior staff and I are reading a book called Turn the
Ship Around, by David Marquet. If you aren’t familiar
with the book or the excellent ten-minute summary
you can find on YouTube, here’s the short version.
As an upcoming first-time nuclear submarine
captain in the U.S. Navy, Captain Marquet spent a
year preparing to take command of a specific vessel.
Just two weeks before the change of command
ceremony, he was assigned to take command of a
completely different sub, one whose rock-bottom
reputation and performance posed an endless
number of daunting challenges. The book — a compelling
and interesting read that I highly recommend
— details the innovative leadership techniques that
Captain Marquet used to “turn the ship around.”
Deliberate Action
For the purposes of the risk management/
decision-making theme of this issue, I want to focus
on a chapter called “Mistakes Just Happen.” Lots of
things can go (badly) wrong on a nuclear submarine,
and Captain Marquet begins this chapter with the
story of a potentially deadly mistake. The responsible
crewmember and his supervisor fessed up and,
based on traditional Navy practices, they expected
the worst in terms of punishment. However, Captain
Marquet recognized — as the FAA does with Compliance
Philosophy — that finding and permanently
fixing the problem was the most important thing he
could do. The responsible parties were willing and
able to comply, and they freely offered information
about what happened. So the focus turned to figuring
out why it happened, and how the crew could
prevent a recurrence of this particular mistake.
In the course of the analysis, one officer
observed that the crewmember “was just in auto. He
didn’t engage his brain before he did what he did; he
was just executing a procedure.” As Captain Marquet
tells the story:
deliberate action” as our mechanism. This meant
that prior to any action, the operator paused
and vocalized and gestured toward what he was
about to do, and only after taking a deliberate
pause would he execute the action. Our intent
was to eliminate those “automatic” mistakes.
Since the goal of “take deliberate action” was to
introduce deliberateness in the mind of the operator,
it didn’t matter whether anyone was around
or not. Deliberate actions were not performed for
the benefit of an observer or an inspector. They
weren’t for show. Our mechanism to prevent
recurrence of the problem was to implement the
taking of deliberate actions on board.
As with any culture change, it took some time
for deliberate action to sink in. Like some in aviation,
submariners seemed to take pride in operating as
quickly as possible. By the time of the submarine’s
next inspection, when the ship ultimately earned the
highest grade anyone had ever seen on its reactor
operations, the senior inspector noted that: “Your
guys made the same
mistakes — no, your
guys tried to make We discussed a mechanism for engaging your
the same number brain before acting. We decided that when
of mistakes — as operating a nuclear-powered submarine we
everyone else. But wanted people to act deliberately, and we
the mistakes never decided on “take deliberate action” as our
happened because mechanism. — David Marquet
of deliberate action.
Either they were corrected by the operator himself or
by a teammate.”
I’m sure I don’t have to spell out the relevance
and application of deliberate action to anyone in
aviation. In fact, many of you are likely familiar with
the classic advice to use a “wind your watch” interval
before reacting to an abnormality or emergency.
Whatever phrase you use, though, deliberate action
that requires you to stop, look, and think before you
actually do anything is an excellent way to practice
sound aeronautical decision-making and risk
management. As Captain Marquet concludes in his
video, “Now go forth and be great!”
I thought that was perceptive. We discussed
a mechanism for engaging your brain before
acting. We decided that when operating a
nuclear-powered submarine we wanted people
to act deliberately, and we decided on “take
Learn More
FAA’s Compliance Philosophy page
www.faa.gov/go/cp
January/February 2017 FAA Safety Briefing 1

ATIS AVIATION
NEWS ROUNDUP
FAA Urges Retrofit of Helicopters to Increase
Crash Safety
FAA Administrator Michael Huerta and GA & Commercial
Division Manager Jim Viola along with several FAA Safety
Team Program Managers.
FAA Administrator Michael Huerta called on
operators and manufacturers during the 2016 FAA
International Rotorcraft Safety Conference to retrofit
helicopters by installing equipment or changing aircraft
designs to help prevent post-crash fires.
Huerta noted during his October speech at the
second annual conference that only 16 percent of
U.S. registered helicopters meet all federal regulations
for post-crash fires.
“If an industry has a genuine focus on compliance
and on preemptive risk management, it
shouldn’t wait for new regulations before taking
action,” Huerta said. “Both government and industry
should look at the data and collaborate on solutions.
We should implement changes as soon as we can.
“Whatever can be achieved by manufacturers,
operators, and pilots today will be instrumental in
eliminating these fatalities tomorrow,” Huerta said.
FAA data shows that when a post-crash fire
occurs in fatal helicopter crashes, it contributes to
fatality 20 percent of the time in the United States.
Blunt force trauma contributes to the other 80 percent
of fatalities.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the FAA changed its
rotorcraft regulations to add occupant protection
rules that cover emergency landing conditions and
fuel system crash resistance. However, the rules
did not require a retrofit of the existing fleet. Also,
newly manufactured rotorcraft were only required
to comply if they were built under a new type certificate.
Decades later, the net result is that only a small
percentage of rotorcraft are equipped with the added
protection. The anticipated improvement in safety
wasn’t recognized to its fullest extent.
Advocacy groups, crash survivors, and relatives
of people that died in helicopter accidents have been
pushing the government to ensure more helicopters
are required to meet the more stringent occupant
protection requirements.
The FAA’s Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee’s
working group on Rotorcraft Occupant
Protection has submitted recommendations for
changes to existing federal regulations to better prevent
post-crash fires and blunt force trauma. Until
changes are made, however, the FAA continues to
urge voluntary compliance as it has the most immediate
impact on safety.
GA Remains on NTSB Most Wanted List
The National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) released its 2017-2018 Most Wanted List of
Transportation Safety Improvements last November.
On the top 10 list is Prevent Loss of Control in Flight
in General Aviation. Although commercial airline
accidents have become relatively rare in the U.S.,
accidents involving inflight loss of control (LOC) in
GA, while trending downward, still occur at an unacceptable
rate. From 2008 to 2014, nearly 48 percent
of fatal fixed-wing GA accidents resulted from pilots
losing control of their aircraft in flight. During this
time, LOC in flight accounted for 1,194 fatalities.
The NTSB has also moved to a two-year cycle
for the list instead of issuing it annually. The change
allows more time for the transportation industry,
safety advocates, regulatory agencies, and individuals
to effect the changes necessary to address the ten
issues on the Most Wanted List.
You can download the NTSB fact sheet about
LOC at http://bit.ly/2fOuzX5.
2 FAA Safety Briefing January/February 2017

IACRA Updates to Online Processing
FAA’s Integrated Airman Certification and Rating
Application (IACRA) is the web-based certification/
rating application at https://iacra.faa.gov that guides
the user through the airman application process.
IACRA helps ensure applicants meet regulatory and
policy requirements through the use of extensive
data validation. It also uses electronic signatures to
protect the information's integrity, eliminates paper
forms, and prints temporary certificates.
Some of the recent updates to the system
include the minimum age being lowered to 13 years
old; applicants at least 13 years old may now begin
the Student Pilot application process, though the
application can’t be completed until 90 days before
their 14th birthday; temporary certificates will now
be issued for student pilots, and will be available for
printing after FAA internal processing is complete
and the applicant is at least 14 years old; and remote
pilot certificate processing for small unmanned aircraft
systems (sUAS) is available.
NASA Releases New Ice Induced Stall
Pilot Training
The information in the new NASA ice-induced
stall training video (https://youtu.be/NBX84bF2d4U)
supersedes, supplants, and replaces the instruction in
all previous NASA tail stall icing training videos. This
training aid is intended to help pilots understand the
phenomenon of tailplane and wing stall while flying
in icing conditions. The training also explains icing
certification rules and recommends cockpit procedures
to mitigate ice induced stall in order to maintain
controlled flight during unexpected icing encounters.
Airplane Flying Handbook Update
The FAA’s Airplane Flying Handbook has a new
version online. You can download it and signup for
email updates from the Airman Testing page at
www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing.
FAA Issues Part 107 Waivers, Authorizations
The FAA began issuing part 107 waivers and airspace
authorizations to drone operators on August
29, 2016, the effective date of the new rule. However,
the agency has found that many applications have
incorrect or incomplete information. Many applicants
request multiple sections to be waived, which
makes the application more complex, or request
authorizations for flights in types of airspace for
which the FAA is not yet granting approvals. As a
result, the agency has had to reject many waiver
requests and airspace applications.
It’s important for applicants to understand the
information needed to make a successful safety case
for granting a waiver. Refer to the performance-based
standards PDF at www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver.
Without a detailed description of how the applicant
intends to meet these standards, the FAA can’t
determine if a waiver is possible. Operators should
select only the part 107 regulations that need to be
waived for the proposed operation. Applicants also
should respond promptly to any request we make
for additional information. If the agency does not
receive a response after 30 days, it will disapprove
the waiver application.
Operators must apply for airspace authorizations
on the same web page. The required
information is spelled out in the waiver/airspace
authorization instructions document. As the FAA
previously announced, operators who want to fly
in Class G (uncontrolled) airspace do not need FAA
authorization.
The part 107 regulations provide a flexible
framework for unmanned aircraft operations. Waivers
and airspace authorizations are an important
part of making the new rule work as intended. Applicants
can help speed the process by making sure
they make a solid, detailed safety case for any flights
not covered under the small drone rule.
FAA Receives Recommendations from Flight
Service User Group
The FAA hosted a two-day meeting with the
Flight Service NAS Efficient Streamlined Services
(FSNESS) User Group in September. FSNESS is
part of the Administrator’s initiative to transform
to a more efficient NAS with increased safety and
user benefits.
The meeting focused on a data-driven approach
to determine whether to sustain, modify, discontinue
or add new services to improve efficiency of
January/February 2017 FAA Safety Briefing 3

U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
ISSN: 1057-9648
FAA Safety Briefing
January/February 2017
Volume 56/Number 1
Anthony R. Foxx Secretary of Transportation
Michael P. Huerta Administrator
Margaret Gilligan Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety
John Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service
James Viola Manager, General Aviation and Commercial Division
Susan Parson Editor
Tom Hoffmann Managing Editor
James Williams Associate Editor / Photo Editor
Jennifer Caron Assistant Editor
Paul Cianciolo Assistant Editor
Jessica Craney Art Director
Published six times a year, FAA Safety Briefing, formerly FAA Aviation News, promotes
aviation safety by discussing current technical, regulatory, and procedural
aspects affecting the safe operation and maintenance of aircraft. Although based
on current FAA policy and rule interpretations, all material is advisory or informational
in nature and should not be construed to have regulatory effect. Certain
details of accidents described herein may have been altered to protect the privacy
of those involved.
The FAA does not officially endorse any goods, services, materials, or products of
manufacturers that may be referred to in an article. All brands, product names,
company names, trademarks, and service marks are the properties of their respective
owners. All rights reserved.
The Office of Management and Budget has approved the use of public funds for
printing FAA Safety Briefing.
CONTACT INFORMATION
The magazine is available on the Internet at:
http://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing
Comments or questions should be directed to the staff by:
●●
●●
Emailing: SafetyBriefing@faa.gov
Writing: Editor, FAA Safety Briefing, Federal Aviation Administration, AFS-
850, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591
●●
Calling: (202) 267-1100
●●
Twitter: @FAASafetyBrief
SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, sells FAA
Safety Briefing on subscription and mails up to four renewal notices.
For New Orders: Subscribe via the Internet at http://bookstore.gpo.gov, telephone
(202) 512-1800 or toll-free 1-866-512-1800, or use the self-mailer form in the center of
this magazine and send to Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC 20402-9371.
Subscription Problems/Change of Address: Send your mailing label with your
comments/request to Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Contact Center, Washington, DC 20408-9375. You can also call (202) 512-1800
or 1-866-512-1800 and ask for Customer Service, or fax your information to (202)
512-2104.
flight services within the Continental United States,
Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Possible changes in Alaska
will be considered in an upcoming analysis.
The FSNESS User Group includes representatives
from the Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association,
Air Line Pilots Association, National Business Aviation
Association, Helicopter Association International,
National Association of Flight Instructors,
National Association of State Aviation Officials,
Department of Defense, Experimental Aircraft
Association, and the National Air Traffic Controllers
Association.
FAA participants supported the meeting as
subject matter experts and provided an overview of
each service, answered questions regarding existing
services, and helped to identify implementation
considerations.
The 15 recommendations fell into one of these
service categories: Preflight Services and Pilot Briefings;
Broadcast Services; Flight Plan Filing and
Activation/Closure; Inflight Services; Online Web
Portals; and Pilot Education and Guidance.
The User Group reached consensus on all of
the recommendations and will continue to work in
partnership with the FAA to implement the changes.
Some of the recommendations are short-term and
easy; others are more complex and require a multistep
solution. The team will work to determine next
steps, identify other affected FAA organizations,
go through the safety management process, and
develop or update policy, procedures, and contract
language.
A recurring theme in many recommendations
is the need for education and targeted outreach to
increase awareness among pilots for automated
services while continuing to leverage technology to
improve those services.
4 FAA Safety Briefing January/February 2017

Aeromedical Advisory
JAMES FRASER, M.D.
FEDERAL AIR SURGEON
How Risk Based Decision Making Helps Us Help You
If you’ve been following these pages, you’re
probably aware of my long standing goal to get as
many airmen as possible safely into the air. When I
first became the Federal Air Surgeon, I set an ambitious
goal of having 95 percent of airmen leave the
Aviation Medical Examiner’s (AME) office with a
medical certificate in hand. Historically, that number
had been around 90 percent. I’m excited to report
that as we closed out fiscal year 2016, we achieved
a result of 97.7 percent of airmen walking out with a
medical certificate in hand. This is tantalizingly close
to my dream goal of 98 percent.
How Did We Get Here?
One of the things that helped push us so close to
our goal was the use of Risk Based Decision Making
(RBDM). RBDM, when applied to medical certification,
allows us to look at where there is risk in our
system and determine how we might be able to mitigate
it. We started by looking at deferred airmen with
specific conditions and cross-referencing that information
with accident and incident data. In many
cases, we found no relationship between the two.
Based on this information we made a decision,
using RBDM, to focus more on conditions that could
cause sudden or subtle incapacitation instead of
general health threats. While your AME could still
note these general health conditions, they wouldn’t
be grounds for deferral. We also began to rewrite the
AME Guide to leverage the experience of our AMEs
and allow them greater freedom to issue certificates
without FAA intervention. Some of the changes to
our AME Guide and procedures included the Conditions
AMEs Can Issue (CACI) and AME Assisted
Special Issuance (AASI) programs, which both give
AMEs more tools to prevent deferrals.
We also learned to apply mitigating strategies
that allow us to issue certificates that previously
would not have been possible. Sometimes those mitigations
are part of our Special Issuance (SI) process
and other times they are through our normal certification
process (i.e., CACI). In the case of SI, one of
those mitigations is shorter duration certificates (one
year as opposed to two). Other mitigations might be
a requirement for additional information or tests, or
some other strategy that we can use to reduce that
risk. This could apply to either process.
How Are We Moving Forward?
When we started the process of updating the
AME Guide, we knew it would be an uphill task.
Our goal was to make as much of the AME Guide as
accessible as possible not only to our AMEs, but also
to airmen. This process is continuous. It will never
end, nor should it. As technology, medicine, and
treatments advance, we will have more opportunities
to certificate even more airmen.
One area we’ve opened up more recently is
depression. It wasn’t long ago that depression was
a condition we didn’t certify. After much consideration
and research, we have developed procedures
that allow some pilots receiving certain treatments
to be certificated under specific conditions.
That’s a huge step, one that wouldn’t be possible
without RBDM.
We realize that sometimes these risk mitigation
strategies can seem onerous or difficult to comply
with. One of the most frequent complaints is that
insurance won’t cover the test you want at the time
you want it. We do understand that these tests can
be expensive. Overall, we have reduced the number
of tests we require, and we will continue to look for
such opportunities.
The reality is that there will still be times when
some tests are required. In that case, please work
with us and your AME to see how we can resolve the
issue. Maybe we can use a different test or move the
timing to better align with insurance requirements. If
we can find a way to mitigate that risk, we can probably
work it out.
Farewell
As these pages go to press, I will be retiring from
the FAA. I want to take this opportunity to say what
an honor it has been to serve as your Federal Air
Surgeon. I also want to thank those who took the
time to write or attend one of my presentations. Your
feedback has been an important part of getting us
so far in our goal of certificating as many airmen as
safely possible.
James Fraser received a B.A., M.D., and M.P.H. from the University of
Oklahoma. He completed a thirty year Navy career and retired as a Captain
(O6) in January 2004. He is certified in the specialties of Preventive Medicine
(Aerospace Medicine) and Family Practice. He is a Fellow of the Aerospace
Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Practice.
January/February 2017 FAA Safety Briefing 5

Ask Medical Certification
PENNY GIOVANETTI, D.O.
MANAGER, AEROSPACE MEDICAL
SPECIALTIES DIVISION
Q1. Is A-fibrillation a reason to reject a 3rd
class medical?
A1. Atrial fibrillation, also known as “AFib,” is a
heart condition where the heart beat is irregular.
Some people have no symptoms at all, and others
may have a sense of fluttering heart, fatigue, and
even loss of consciousness. AFib also greatly
increases the risk for stroke. While it can be disqualifying,
a vast majority of airmen with AFib can
be effectively treated and granted special issuance
medical certificates.
Q2. Hello, I have a medical question I would like
to ask anonymously regarding the implications of
an aortic aneurysm on my Class III medical.
I am a 72 yr old white male, 5’10”, 213 lbs who
has been flying under a special issuance for high
blood pressure for 40+ years.
I went in for the annual Medicare Wellness
checkup and my primary care doctor noted elevated
blood pressure. He immediately adjusted my
medications (all on FAA approved list) and brought
it back down to an average of 135/53 mmHg and
a heart rate averaging 57 bpm. He then ordered a
CAT abdomen scan to check for kidney damage.
The findings include:
“…Ultimately extensive urinary arterial calcification
involving all three coronary arteries.
The heart is enlarged with concentric left
ventricular hypertrophy and mild left ventricular
dilatation. There is dilatation of the
aortic root, measuring 4.6 cm at the sinuses of
Valsalva. Dilation of the proximal ascending
aorta, maximum diameter 4.3 cm.”
The reading doctor’s impression is:
“Extensive calcified coronary artery disease.
Concentric left ventricular hypertrophy with
mild left ventricular dilation. Dilatation of
aortic root and mild maximum 4.3 cm aneurysmal
change seen in the visualized portion
of the ascending aorta …”
My doctor inquired about symptoms such as
chest or arm pain/discomfort. I am NOT experiencing
chest or arm pain/discomfort. He did
perform a treadmill stress test which I passed.
Currently, he has me on a one year follow up for
a stress test and CAT scan. All blood test is within
normal limits.
I did request a consultation with a cardiovascular
surgeon. The conversation started out with
him asking “What are you doing here? I do not
want to see you until you are a 5.5, or maybe a 5…”
Is this condition within the limits for a Class
III medical? If not, can the AME do a complete
record review and exam and if satisfied, do a
special issuance from his office, or, will he have to
refer it to Oklahoma City?
A2. Based on the information you have provided,
there are three concerns: calcified coronary artery
disease, concentric left ventricular hypertrophy,
and a dilated ascending aorta, all three of which
would need to be addressed. Since your question is
specifically about the aorta, 4.3 cm is within limits,
but should be followed annually by echocardiogram.
AMEs are not allowed to grant special issuances. I
recommend that you take your records to your AME
well in advance of expiration of your medical certificate
(60-90 days), so that if you need a special issuance,
the decision can be made without any lapse in
your certification.
Q3. I am 58 years old and I have type two diabetes.
I have kept my A1C numbers good with diet
and metformin. Can I get a medical?
A3. With the information provided here, assuming
you have no diabetes-related organ disease,
it sounds as if your chances for special issuance
are good.
Penny Giovanetti, D.O., received a bachelor’s degree from Stanford, a master’s
in Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine from the University of Iowa
and doctorate from Des Moines University. She completed a 27-year career
as an Air Force flight surgeon. She is board certified in aerospace medicine,
occupational medicine and physical medicine/rehabilitation. She is also a
Fellow of the Aerospace Medical Association and a private pilot.
Send your questions to SafetyBriefing@faa.gov. We’ll
forward them to the Aerospace Medical Certification
Division, without your name, and publish the answer
in an upcoming issue.
6 FAA Safety Briefing January/February 2017

Sharing the
Wealth
ASAP Expansion Improves Airspace Safety for All
A
safety improvement program that has paid big
dividends for the scheduled airlines and other
large fleet operators for nearly 20 years is now
available for small and medium size part 135 and
part 91 operators.
ASAP Expands
Under a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU), the FAA has approved the Air Charter Safety
Foundation (ACSF) as a third-party Aviation Safety
Action Program (ASAP) manager. ASAP enables
employees of charter operators and flight departments
to file reports when they are involved in situations
with safety implications or possible violations
of FAA regulations.
These reports are analyzed by an event review
committee (ERC) comprised of the FAA, company
management, and participating employee group
representatives (pilots, mechanics, etc.). After carefully
reviewing the circumstances surrounding each
report, the ERC decides on the appropriate course of
action to mitigate or eliminate similar occurrences.
The U.S. aviation community spends billions
of dollars annually training pilots, mechanics, and
other employees in the interest of safety. Operators
invest resources in developing standard operating
procedures (SOPs) to provide a safety roadmap for
employees to follow. The FAA encourages the use of
safety management systems to identify and manage
risks. Despite all these efforts, mistakes still happen,
procedures are not followed, and safety is compromised.
That’s where ASAP can help.
“The whole premise behind the program is
determining root cause of errors and mistakes,”
said Bryan Burns, ACSF president. Most ASAP pilot
reports involve things like altitude deviations, navigation
errors, or speed restriction violations. “So, you
just had a deviation. What was going on in the cockpit,
what was happening?” said Burns.
Filing an ASAP report provides crewmembers
with immunity from the FAA for inadvertent, or unintentional,
violations of the regulations to encourage
people to speak up when something goes wrong.
“Being forthright and honest leads to better
procedures, better training,” Burns said, “and helps
prevent the same mistakes from being repeated. That
makes the operating environment safer for everyone.”
Such reporting programs have been used by the
employees of major airlines and other large-fleet
operators for nearly 20 years, generating tens of thousands
of reports that alert the carriers and the FAA to
problems that can be addressed
by changes in training and
procedures.
ACSF officials wanted
to provide a way for smaller
operators to gain the benefit
of similar feedback, and began
working closely with the FAA
Being forthright and honest leads to
better procedures, better training,
and helps prevent the same mistakes
from being repeated. That makes
the operating environment safer
for everyone.
in 2012. With encouragement from FAA senior
management in Washington, officials of the agency’s
Great Lakes Region headquarters got the ball rolling.
ACSF signed an MOU with the Great Lakes Region,
and operators who wanted to participate in ASAP
then had MOUs signed with their local Flight Standards
District Offices (FSDOs).
The ACSF-managed ASAP program is now
approved in the contiguous United States including
the FAA Eastern, Central, Great Lakes, Southern,
Southwest, Western-Pacific, and Northwest Mountain
regions.
As of late-summer 2016, there were 55 operators
enrolled in the ACSF-administered ASAP — 27 part
135 charter operators and 28 part 91 corporate flight
departments. Over the past four years, employees of
those 55 operators have generated nearly 650 ASAP
reports. Another 15 operators are in various stages of
signing the MOU/employee training process.
The program is structured so ACSF, not the FAA
or the operator, shoulders 90 percent of the administrative
burden. “In all respects, it’s a win-win for all
parties involved,” Burns said.
In addition, ACSF members can now participate
in the FAA’s Aviation Safety Information Analysis and
Sharing (ASIAS) program. ASAP participation results
in a lot of de-identified information sharing among
companies and safety administrators. After all, safety
isn’t competitive.
Learn More
Air Charter Safety Foundation
www.acsf.aero
FAA's Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing
(ASIAS) program
www.asias.faa.gov
January/February 2017 FAA Safety Briefing 7

SUSAN PARSON
Risky Business
The What, How, and Why of Risk Management
A ship is always safe at the shore — but that is NOT what it is built for.
— Albert Einstein
Once upon a time, pretty much everyone involved
in aviation took an “accidents happen” view of
the world. From time to time in my pre-internet
youth, I would pick up the newspaper or turn on
the TV news to learn about a major airline accident.
The photos were always grim. The details of each
accident differed, but the result was the same. The
investigation would reveal some human, mechanical,
or meteorological flaw. Government and industry
would come up with a way to address the issue,
and off we’d go until the cycle repeated with the
next accident.
The “find, fix, and fly” approach resulted in a
number of safety enhancements over the years.
There was better training (including crew resource
management, or CRM) for flight crews, maintenance
personnel, and air traffic controllers. There
were upgrades to airplanes and avionics. There was
research on weather phenomena such as wind shear.
There were new rules to ensure that everyone complied
with the changes.
These improvements made major accidents less
common, but everyone involved in aviation eventually
realized that just waiting for the next accident
to put a spotlight on some heretofore undiscovered
flaw was not the best way to improve aviation safety.
The community — to include government as
well as all segments of the industry — also came to
understand that even the most faithful adherence to
rules and regulations will not prevent the next accident.
There is no question that following regulations
is a vital part of aviation safety risk management.
The rules provide an essential foundation for aviation
safety. They are meant to direct the pilot’s path
toward practices that contribute to safe operation
and away from activities that undermine it.
The problem is that while regulations are necessary,
they are not sufficient in and of themselves.
They offer comprehensive and
sometimes exquisitely detailed
treatment of individual issues.
Still, regulations simply cannot
cover the nearly infinite number
of possible combinations of situations
that can undermine safety.
In this respect, regulations
alone are like bricks
without mortar.
Photo by H. Dean Chamberlain
8 FAA Safety Briefing January/February 2017

System Safety
Enter the discipline of risk management, and
the concepts of system safety. The terms are admittedly
abstract and they have a formal (and somewhat
formidable) official definition. But, as the characters
repeatedly assert in the slapstick Airplane! movies,
“that’s not important right now.” To make the concept
more concrete, think of system safety as the
mortar needed to bind individual regulatory bricks
together and build a sturdy barrier to accidents.
You know about the regulatory “bricks,” so let’s
focus on the “mortar.”
A system can be defined as a combination of
people, procedures, equipment, facilities, software,
tools, and materials that operate in a specific environment
to perform a specific task or achieve a specific
purpose. GA flight operations clearly constitute
a complex system with many variables:
• Pilots have different levels of knowledge, skill,
experience, ability, and discipline.
• Procedures, such as instrument approaches,
can be very complex.
• Equipment, airframes and avionics, is
changing rapidly.
• Services, such as those provided by airports
and air traffic control, vary widely and are
already changing as NextGen technologies are
deployed in the National Airspace System.
• The flight environment, including weather, is a
critical factor in the safety of every flight.
• External factors can have a substantial impact,
especially if the pilot doesn’t consciously
recognize them.
Risk Management
A key part of the system-safety approach is risk
management, a decision-making process designed
to methodically identify hazards, assess the degree of
risk, and determine the best course of action. To put
risk management to work in your personal aviation
safety system, you need to be familiar with some of
the basic concepts:
• A hazard is a present condition, event, object,
or circumstance that could lead or contribute
to an unplanned or undesired event. For
example, a ¼-inch nick in the propeller is a
hazard.
• Risk is the future impact of a hazard that is not
controlled or eliminated.
A risk-assessment matrix shows that the level of
risk posed by a given hazard is measured in terms
of severity (extent of possible loss), and probability
(likelihood that a hazard will cause a loss). Exposure
(number of people or resources affected) can also be
considered in assessing risk.
Here’s a practical illustration of both the “rule
gap” and the hazard/risk relationship.
A few years ago, I sent a primary student out to
do the preflight inspection. As required by school
rules, he carefully checked the Cessna 152’s maintenance
and airworthiness records before heading out
to the airplane. All paperwork was in apple-pie order.
Reaching the plane, my student discovered a
sheen of oil on the nosewheel fairing. When he bent
down for a closer look, he noticed that it was fresh,
and steadily increasing with the steady drip-dripdripping
of oil droplets escaping from somewhere in
the engine compartment.
While he had established compliance with the
paperwork and maintenance and airworthiness service
requirements, my student correctly concluded
that a bleeding airplane
was not in a condition Even the most faithful adherence to rules
for safe flight. In terms will not prevent the next accident, because
of hazards and risks, the regulations simply cannot cover the nearly
Cessna 152 oil leak was infinite number of possible combinations of
a hazard, but it would
situations that can undermine safety.
become a risk only if
the airplane had been flown. So we went back inside
for coffee, and wound up using the scheduled lesson
time to discuss safety rules, safety realities, and the
concept of safety risk management.
Practical (Easy) Risk Management
To make system safety and risk management
practical for real-world GA operations, the FAA
Safety Team (FAASTeam) promotes a simple threestep
process:
1. Perceive, or identify, the possible hazards
associated with each category in the wellknown
PAVE checklist:
• Pilot — e.g., experience, recency, currency,
physical and emotional condition
• Aircraft — e.g., fuel reserves, experience
in type, aircraft performance, aircraft
equipment
• enVironment — e.g., airport conditions,
weather (VFR and IFR requirements),
runways, lighting, terrain
• External factors — e.g., impact of delays
and diversions
January/February 2017 FAA Safety Briefing 9

Pilot
enVironment
Aircraft
External
Pressures
The four elements of the
PAVE risk assessment
checklist.
2. Process, or analyze, by evaluating the severity,
probability, and/or exposure of the risk posed
by the hazard(s) you identified in step one.
3. Perform by finding ways to eliminate or
mitigate the severity, probability, and/or
exposure of each of the identified hazards.
With consistent use, cycling continuously
through the three-P cycle can become a habit that
is as smooth and automatic as a well-honed crosscheck,
interpret, and control scan taught in instrument
flying.
Risk Management in the Airman
Certification Standards (ACS)
The FAA Risk Management Handbook (FAA-H-
8083-2) observes that:
Learning how to identify problems, analyze the
information, and make informed and timely
decisions is not as straightforward as the training
involved in learning specific maneuvers.
Learning how to judge
a situation and “how
A key part of the system-safety approach to think” in the endless
is risk management, a decision-making variety of situations
process designed to methodically identify encountered while flying
hazards, assess the degree of risk, and out in the “real world”
determine the best course of action.
is more difficult. There
is no one right answer
in Aeronautical Decision Making (ADM); rather
each pilot is expected to analyze each situation in
light of experience level, personal minimums, and
current physical and mental readiness level, and
make his or her own decision.
That’s why the new FAA Airman Certification
Standards (ACS), which began replacing the Practical
Test Standards (PTS) in June 2016, explicitly
incorporate risk management into the certification
standards for an airman certificate or rating.
While the PTS has long required the evaluation
of knowledge and risk management elements in
both the ground and flight portions of the practical
test, it offers little more than a statement of the
requirement and, in the case of “Special Emphasis”
items, a list of subjects the Designated Pilot Examiners
(DPEs) must evaluate. The ACS provides better
guidance to applicants, instructors, and evaluators
because it provides specific risk management and
ADM procedures and behaviors associated with
each Task, and it incorporates Special Emphasis
items in the risk management section of the appropriate
Area of Operation/Task. This presentation
helps instructors make stick and rudder skills more
meaningful by teaching them in the context of what
the applicant must know and consider while demonstrating
flight skills. On the practical test, it allows the
evaluator to see and assess an applicant’s judgment
and decision making in the context of actual flight
operations. The ACS thus discourages the use of
abstract and potentially subjective methods of testing
these important skills.
Consistent with the 3-P risk management
model, the ACS is also intended to communicate
and demonstrate that risk management is a continuous
process that includes identification, assessment,
and mitigation of task-specific hazards that create
risk. The risk management element identifies the
circumstantial issues that aviators must consider in
association with a particular task.
Because the level of risk that is acceptable to one
pilot may not be the same for another, some have
expressed concern that testing of risk management
10 FAA Safety Briefing January/February 2017

Photo by Susan Parson
elements in the ACS will be too subjective. It is true
that risk management is unique to each and every
individual, but the ACS defines the circumstances,
conditions, or risks applicable to each Task, not
to the specific individual. Applicants will thus be
tested on their awareness and mitigation of the risks
associated with the Task at hand, which includes the
applicant’s consideration of these elements in the
context of the maneuver but taking account of the
pilot’s experience and ability, the aircraft used, and
the operating environment.
Why Bother with Risk Management?
Aviators love to argue, and social media is full of
lively debate about the “real” cause of GA accidents.
Some threads focus on deficiencies in so-called
stick-and-rudder skills, and suggest — incorrectly —
that the addition of risk management diverts attention
from airplane handling skills.
In fact, most accidents have multiple causes.
Some of the most persistent factors in fatal GA accidents
are maneuvering flight, continued VFR into
IMC, and loss of control on takeoff. All imply some
degree of deficiency in the pilot’s knowledge, skill,
and risk management abilities. Even the world’s best
stick-and-rudder pilot is at risk for loss of control if
he or she has an inadvertent flight into IMC because
of deficiencies in weather knowledge or risk management
ability. Safety is not served by emphasizing
just one of these three abilities; on the contrary, each
supports the others. To paraphrase the familiar “all
available information” regulation (14 CFR section
91.103), we need to use “all available means,” including
risk management, to fly safely.
Susan Parson (susan.parson@faa.gov, or @avi8rix for Twitter fans) is editor
of FAA Safety Briefing. She is an active general aviation pilot and flight
instructor.
Learn More
FAA Risk Management Handbook (FAA-H-8083-2)
http://go.usa.gov/xktZr
Airman Certification Standards
www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs
Safety Enhancement Topics
January: Single-Pilot CRM
How to manage a crew of just you.
February: Personal Minimums & Weather Cameras
Understanding how to establish, maintain, and
adhere to personal minimums when flying.
Please visit www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing for more information on these and other topics.
January/February 2017 FAA Safety Briefing 11

Say Ahh ...
A Pilot’s Guide to
Self-Assessing Risk
TOM HOFFMANN
In the grand scheme of aviation risk management,
it is easy to focus on the more tangible and blackand-white
realities of flying. For example, will my
airplane clear that 50-foot obstacle at the end of
the runway with full fuel? Or, is my aircraft properly
equipped for night flight in instrument meteorological
conditions (IMC)? A few performance calculations,
handbook references, and preflight checks can
usually affirm a clear go, or no-go, decision.
Where it can get fuzzy and gray is assessing the
level of risk that you, as the pilot, bring to the equation.
Instead of relying on calculations and hard
numbers to measure risk, it requires a more internal
assessment of your readiness to fly, as well as being
honest with yourself and your abilities. It boils down
to three basic questions you should ask yourself
before any flight: Am I healthy? Am I legal? And am I
proficient? This article will explore how to assess and
address pilot risk in each of these areas.
Am I Healthy?
I’m a visual person. The more of something I can
visualize, the better I can understand it and tuck it
away in my memory banks. I’m also a firm believer
in the power of acronyms and mnemonics, those
memory-jogging abbreviations that are engrained in
aviators’ everyday operations. While some aviation
acronyms don’t always give us a good sight picture of
what we’re expected to do, the “I’MSAFE” acronym
is one that I believe hits the proverbial nail on the
head. It offers a simple and easy-to-remember way
of checking your health before every flight. Let’s
break it down.
Illness — Am I Sick?
While the average 9-to-5er may bristle at the
thought of calling in sick from a simple case of the
sniffles, that same act of fortitude can prove
problematic when deciding to fly. In addition to
dealing with the distraction of pain and/or discomfort,
even common maladies like a cold are often
accompanied by a regiment of over-the-counter
(OTC) medications that can wreak havoc on a pilot’s
ability to stay focused and clear-headed during
flight. We’ll cover more on meds next, but the bottom
line here is quite simple: if you’re not well, don’t fly.
Let’s say you knew in advance that your engine
was only going to give you 80 percent of its best possible
performance on a given day. Would you still
fly? It’s the same expectation you should have for
yourself — nothing less than running on all cylinders
should be acceptable.
12 FAA Safety Briefing January/February 2017

The regulations have something to say about
this as well. Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) section 61.53 outlines operational prohibitions
for pilots when they know, or have reason to know,
of any medical condition (whether it’s a chronic
disease, or a 24-hour bug) that would make them
unable to meet the requirements for the medical
certificate necessary for the pilot operation, or — for
those not requiring medical certification — make
them unable to operate an aircraft in a safe manner.
Although vague in design, the rule prompts pilots
to use good judgment and voluntarily ground
themselves when they’re not feeling up to the task
of aviating.
Medication — Have I Taken Any Prescription/
OTC Meds?
As we noted earlier, medications can have a
clear impact on a pilot’s ability to perform. While
some effects are obvious, others can be deceivingly
detrimental and may vary according to an individual’s
tolerance level. Among the top offenders are
sedating antihistamines, in particular, diphenhydramine
(aka Benadryl). In addition to being an active
ingredient in many cold medications, diphenhydramine
is also used as an OTC sedative and is the
sedating agent in most PM pain meds.
Evidence of rising antihistamine use (as well
as other OTC medications) was at the forefront of a
2014 NTSB study, in which the percentage of pilots
with potentially impairing drugs found in their
system after an accident was greater than 20 percent
in 2012. That was more than double the rate found
at the outset of the study in 1990. The most common
potentially impairing drug found in this study of
nearly 6,600 aviation accidents: you guessed it,
diphenhydramine.
A good way to ensure the medications you use
don’t impair your flying is to first check the labels.
Thankfully, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) has strict labeling standards for all OTC
medications so it’s easy to make comparisons
and spot any potential side effects. The FDA also
has a handy, online label checker you can use too
(http://labels.fda.gov/). For medications that have a
warning about using caution when driving a vehicle,
the FAA recommends using the “Rule of 5” — waiting
at least five times the longest recommended
interval between doses before flying.
Labels won’t always answer all your questions
so contact your Aviation Medical Examiner if you’re
unsure about a particular drug or would like to know
more about safer alternatives. For more information,
go to http://go.usa.gov/xkMvh.
Stress — Do I Have Any Job, Money, Family,
or Health Issues?
We may not always think about it, but we’re
under some level of stress with almost everything
we do — whether on the job, with family, or even
during what’s supposed to be a relaxing backcountry
camping trip. Stress can affect people differently, so
it’s really important for you to have a way of gauging
a clear head and a sound state of mind before taking
that flight.
A brief quarrel with your spouse, while seemingly
insignificant, can easily cloud your thoughts
and cause you to be distracted during flight. (Been
there, done that, and learned a valuable lesson!) A
more severe event, like the loss of a job, or a loved
one, requires even more attention and self-examination
to assess whether or not you’ve been able to
properly come to terms with your situation and your
emotions. It may not always be the easiest thing to
January/February 2017 FAA Safety Briefing 13

do — especially if others are counting on you to fly
them somewhere — but delaying or postponing a
flight due to stress is always a good call.
There are several ways to help manage stress
and prevent it from accumulating. For starters, try
maintaining a regular exercise regime and make
relaxation a priority in your daily schedule; have you
actually ever tried yoga? It’s a great way to combine
the two. Sharpening your time
Stress can affect people differently, management skills can also help
so it’s really important for you to
reduce stress by meeting deadlines
and keeping those honeydo
lists from growing too large.
have a way of gauging a clear head
and a sound state of mind before
Finally, an FAA study in 2000
taking that flight.
on the impact of stress in aviation
found that the top ranked stress coping strategy
among participants was a stable relationship with a
partner, so don’t be afraid to bend your spouse’s ear!
To learn more about how stress can affect
your performance, watch this FAA video
(www.faa.gov/tv/?mediaid=450) and check out the
article “Stress in Flight” in the Jan/Feb 2009 issue of
FAA Safety Briefing.
Alcohol — Have I Had a Drink in the Last 8
Hours? 24 Hours?
For many, “throwing back a few” can be an effective
way to relax and unwind after a tough day. But
if flying is on your horizon, you’ll want to reconsider
your actions. Like beer and wine, the two just don’t
go together. The regulations (14 CFR section 91.17)
say you may not operate an aircraft within eight
hours of having consumed alcohol. Given the lingering
effects alcohol can have on the human body, it’s
best to pad that time and wait 24 hours before flying.
And if you were really in a “celebratory mood,” keep
in mind that the damaging effects of booze can last
48 to 72 hours following your last drink in the form of
a hangover and well after your body has eliminated
all alcohol. Add in night conditions or bad weather
to any of these scenarios, and the negative effects on
flying can be magnified greatly.
For more information, have a look at the FAA’s
brochure “Alcohol and Flying — A Deadly Combination”
at http://go.usa.gov/xkFJd.
Fatigue — Am I Properly Rested?
The impact of fatigue in the aviation industry
is an all-too-common phenomenon. Although it’s
rarely the singular cause of a fatal accident, the term
pilot fatigue is riddled throughout NTSB probable
cause reports in all segments of aviation. It’s more
commonly the ugly precursor to many poor last
decisions (or indecisions). As to why a simple lack
of rest is not mitigated more often, some might say
it’s because it can be easily remedied with coffee or
an energy drink, or that it’s just something they feel
is a nuisance they can power through. Both are false
narratives that gravely underestimate fatigue’s disastrous
potential.
In order to manage fatigue, it’s important to
listen to what your body is telling you. Do you feel
yourself uncontrollably yawning? Are your
eyes bloodshot and bleary? Are you
feeling sluggish or slow to react? Keep
in mind that fatigue isn’t limited to just
these more obvious signs. It’s often a
more insidious problem fueled by a
creeping accumulation of inadequate
rest (e.g., long nights at the office, a new
baby in the house, etc.) Fatigue can also
be caused by physical exertion. Those
first few great-weather flying days we
look forward to in the spring are usually
accompanied by a mountain
of strenuous yard work.
14 FAA Safety Briefing January/February 2017

And while you may not typically be exposed to the
long duty days and time zone shifts that a commercial
pilot might have, you do have to deal with the
stress of a single-pilot workload with no one to catch
your mistakes.
Regardless of what causes fatigue, the important
thing to know is how it can affect your performance
in the cockpit and how to prevent it in the first
place. The antidote here is simple: get more sleep.
You may have heard it a thousand times before, but
strive for eight hours of sleep per night. Easier said
than done, I know. But one thing that I find helpful
in measuring the quantity and quality of sleep, is
wearing a wristwatch activity tracker to bed. Many
are able to provide a full report of your sleep cycles,
including periods of restlessness and time awake.
Arming yourself with this kind of data can go a long
way to more accurately assessing your fatigue level
before a flight.
For more tips on combatting fatigue, see the FAA
brochure at http://go.usa.gov/xkMwc.
Eating — Have I Had Enough to Eat or Drink?
Now, I know many versions of I’MSAFE use
Emotion for “E,” but I think that is something we
covered adequately under our discussion about
Stress. Instead, we’ll use “E” to cover a subject more
near and dear to my heart: eating. Eating healthy,
well-balanced meals is the best way to achieve your
body’s peak performance levels. Unfortunately, not
every airport has a Joe’s Diner conveniently nearby.
In fact, GA pilots can often go several hours past
their normal mealtimes without eating thanks to
weather delays or unexpected diversions. It’s always
a good idea to pack a lunch just in case, or at the very
least, a few healthy snacks that will tide you over. The
same goes for hydrating. Drink whenever you get the
chance. Dehydration can cause dizziness, confusion,
and weakness and can seriously impair your ability
to fly. I never fly without at least one bottle of water
in my flight bag, and I always hit the water fountain
anytime I see one.
Am I Legal/Proficient?
Now that we’ve reviewed some of the physical
and mental hurdles an airman can face, it’s time
to cover some of the legal and experiential aspects
of completing a pilot risk assessment. Let’s start
by addressing the fact that being legal or current
is by no means an indication of being proficient
when it comes to flying. The FAA sets clear standards
when it comes to what’s required in your
logbook before you can fly as pilot in command,
within a certain time period. For a complete list
of these requirements, see 14 CFR section 61.57
(http://go.usa.gov/xkM7t) as well as 14 CFR section
61.56 (http://go.usa.gov/xkMHp) for flight review
requirements. However, just meeting these requirements
alone is unlikely to make you a fully competent
and proficient pilot. That takes additional effort.
A good start towards fine-tuning proficiency is
to use a flight review as an opportunity to go outside
your comfort zone. Weak on crosswind landings?
Been a while since you did a short field grass takeoff
or simulated an onboard fire? Then make these
priority items to work on with an instructor and/or
during a flight review. A review that just substantiates
all the things you already have a good grasp on
is not exactly time (or money) well spent. The key to
proficiency is practice. And then more practice.
There’s lots of resources, and the FAA can help
you become proficient. If you haven’t already signed
up to be a part of the FAA Safety Team’s WINGS Pilot
Proficiency Program, I highly encourage you to do
so. The program is specifically
designed to help pilots become
more proficient by attending
safety seminars, completing
training courses, and performing
various flight activities.
Go to FAASafety.gov for complete
details.
Pilot risk assessment is a very
personal process and one that
requires intimate awareness of
your limitations. You have to be
upfront with yourself mentally,
physically, and experientially.
It’s Personal
Flying is an inherently risky business. However,
learning how to identify and mitigate the potential
risks that a pilot brings to a flight is a significant step
towards improving your odds of a safe outcome. I
hope the information presented here can give you
a better understanding of what to look out for and
what to question before each and every flight. It can
be difficult, as assessing pilot risk is a very personal
process and one that requires intimate awareness of
your limitations. You have to be upfront with yourself
mentally, physically, and experientially. Here, honesty
is not the best policy — it’s the only policy.
Tom Hoffmann is the managing editor of FAA Safety Briefing. He is a commercial
pilot and holds an A&P certificate.
January/February 2017 FAA Safety Briefing 15

JENNIFER CARON
Is My
Aircraft
RightforFlight?
Photo by H. Dean Chamberlain
The
Importance of
Preflight Prep
What’s that weird noise? I think to myself as
I prepare for departure. I just finished my
run-up, ready for take-off, and there it is
again — that deep knocking sound — three times
now — “knock, knock, knock.” But I just shut this
airplane down 30 minutes ago — quick stopover, I
needed a break. Now I’m running late, so I skipped
the preflight check completely. But I always do a
full run-up on every start-up, so it should be good
to go without a preflight check, right? Don’t leave
anything to chance.
Last year, 384 people died in 238 general aviation
accidents. Powerplant system and component
failure was, and is, the third most common event
for fatal accidents, and maintenance errors were
not to blame. Inadequate preflight preparation
was cited as a contributing factor in many of
these accidents.
“A” in PAVE
Preflight preparation of your aircraft is one of
the most important steps you can take to ensure
that your aircraft is fit for flight. It is a critical function
of the “A” in the personal minimums PAVE
checklist of Pilot, Aircraft, EnVironment, and
External Pressures. It is one of the tools pilots use to
assess the risk of a flight by evaluating the presence
of risk factors in each of these four areas.
The PAVE Checklist works like any checklist
that you would use in your aircraft. You should
expand the use of the PAVE to your flight planning
as well, and take special consideration on each line
item before your final decision to fly.
To help with the “A” in PAVE, I’ve highlighted
some simple steps you can take to evaluate your
aircraft prior to takeoff.
Step One — Is it Airworthy? To be airworthy and
safe to fly, the aircraft must meet two primary
conditions. First, it must conform to a type design.
Second, it must be in a condition for safe flight.
16 FAA Safety Briefing January/February 2017

Type Design
An aircraft must conform to its type design,
which includes not only its equipment but also
documented compliance with all required maintenance
inspections. The Type Certificate Data Sheet
(TCDS) for the aircraft provides a formal description
of the aircraft, engine, or propeller, along with limitations
and information on items such as airspeed,
weight, and performance limits.
Condition for Safe Flight
To be in a condition for safe flight, all required
and installed equipment must be in good working
condition. Any repairs and modifications must be
correctly documented. Your aircraft needs an FAA
Form 337 any time it has undergone a major repair
or major alteration, as any changes to type design
require approval through a supplemental type certificate
(STC) that documents the FAA’s approval of a
product (aircraft, engine, or propeller) modification.
Additionally, your aircraft must meet the
requirements of certain inspection cycles. You
should be able to find aircraft maintenance log
entries for completion of the annual or (if applicable)
100-hour inspection, which includes verification
of any applicable airworthiness directives and any
required equipment checks, for example, the VOR
and altimeter/pilot-static system, the transponder,
and the emergency locator transmitter (ELT) battery
strength.
After maintenance, check systems thoroughly,
or ask qualified maintenance personnel to help reinspect
the aircraft to ensure all systems are a go.
Step Two — Is it My Type? Know your experience
level flying that particular aircraft type, and know
your aircraft’s performance abilities and limitations.
Step Three — Gas in the Tank? Know your fuel
reserves. For more detail, see “Fuel Gauge Systems”
in this issue of FAA Safety Briefing.
Step Four — Checklist Checked? Preflight checklists
are your friends — use them! It is important for you,
as a safety-minded pilot, to make use of a physical
preflight checklist. Never work from memory. In this
way, you can ensure that you do not skip or misevaluate
the items you are checking. Always exit the
aircraft and move around it methodically, avoiding
interruptions and distractions during your external
inspection.
Go one step beyond the official checklist items
and develop an additional items checklist to be used
in conjunction with the aircraft’s preflight checklist.
Photo by Tom Hoffmann
Take a look at the FAA Safety Team’s (FAASTeam)
Advanced Preflight pamphlet for guidance on
developing an additional
items checklist to add to
your preflight arsenal. It’s
available on their website at
http://go.usa.gov/x8CkF.
Preflight preparation begins and ends
on the ground, and is one of the most
important steps you can take to ensure
that your aircraft is fit for flight.
Bring Your “A” Game
Another way to check your “A”ircraft, and to
proactively assess risk for a given flight, is with a
Flight Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT). A FRAT helps
pilots make better go/no-go decisions by asking a
series of questions that generally follow the PAVE
checklist. There are an abundance of FRAT options
to choose from, they are simple to use and many
are available as apps on your smartphone or tablet.
Check out “Assessing Risk in the Palm of Your
Hand” in this issue’s Angle of Attack department for
more details.
Remember This
With safety in mind, following proper preflight
procedures plays a critical role to ensure the airworthiness
of your aircraft prior to takeoff. The steps you
take before your aircraft leaves the ground will pay
huge dividends towards your piece of mind while
in the air.
And that weird knocking sound we heard earlier?
Well, that was just your aircraft reminding you
to do a thorough preflight check. Fly safe!
Jennifer Caron is an assistant editor for FAA Safety Briefing. She is a certified
technical writer-editor, and is currently pursuing a Sport Pilot Certificate.
Learn More
FAA Safety Briefing Mar/Apr 2012, “Advanced Preflight,
Take Your Preflight Inspection to the Next Level”
http://go.usa.gov/x8CAK
Advanced Preflight after Maintenance Flyer
http://go.usa.gov/x8CAJ
Link to FAASTeam Safety Materials
http://go.usa.gov/x8CsZ
January/February 2017 FAA Safety Briefing 17

BRING THE
HEAT
How to Avoid Induction Icing
Photo by Angelo DeSantis
DR. DAV E SWA RTZ
In addition to long nights, cold temperatures and
high energy bills, winter also brings with it a more
insidious foe specific to aviators; induction icing.
As air temperatures drop, high relative humidity
occurs more frequently, especially around bodies of
water creating prime conditions for carburetor (carb)
or fuel induction system ice.
Revelations of Recent Wrecks
The Alaska Office of the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) determined that induction ice
likely caused four accidents in Alaska last year.
The common thread in all four accidents was a
failure to use carb heat when appropriate. Their mistakes
should serve as important lessons for all of us,
so let’s have a closer look at what carb icing is, how it
forms, and how to prevent it.
Induction Ice, ID-ed
Carb icing can happen to any carburetor under
the right atmospheric conditions. When there is
humid air, water vapor in the venturi can freeze and
collect on the throat of the carburetor and throttle
plate, blocking airflow to the engine. In the case of
fuel injection systems, the impact tubes can ice up,
resulting in either an incorrect fuel air mixture or no
fuel at all.
Conditions Conducive to Carb Ice
Most airplanes do not have a relative humidity
indicator, which is very important for knowing if you
are likely to get carb ice, and at what power setting.
So how does a pilot, without an on-board meteorologist,
know when they are in these conditions?
The first step is understanding when carb icing
conditions are likely to occur, and then being vigilant
in using induction heat when they do occur. Take
a moment to study the chart on the next page. The
data is from a NASA study of carb ice accidents back
An example of carburetor icing from a real incident that
affected power significantly.
in the 1980s. Note that the temperature and humidity
range covers a lot of the kinds of conditions we fly in
throughout a good part of the year.
The worst conditions for carburetor ice are also
the wettest, where the temperature and dew point
are equal at 100-percent relative humidity (RH).
Now, think about where we fly when we have a cloud
ceiling. As VFR pilots, we tend to fly as high as we
can without going into the clouds or busting minimums.
In a stable atmosphere, the RH climbs with
altitude until you hit the cloud base where it is, by
definition, saturated (i.e., 100-percent RH).
Carb Heat Systems
The primary way to avoid having engine problems
due to induction icing is to use carb heat. In
most airplanes, when you pull the carb heat knob,
a flapper door opens and the engine pulls warm air
through a heat exchanger (also called the carb heat
muff) that surrounds your exhaust system. The standard
that has served us well for testing a new carb
Photo by Dennis Gerstung
18 FAA Safety Briefing January/February 2017

Chart courtesy of AOPA
heat system is a 90 F heat rise, at 75-percent power,
at 30 F outside air temperature.
This heat rise test is done fairly frequently as
part of the new Supplemental Type Certificates for
exhaust systems, and often fails because the system
hasn’t been well maintained. Typically when we
dig into the causes, a leak in the air box is revealed,
which allows cold ram air coming through the air
filter to leak around the flapper valve, diluting the
hot air and thereby cooling down the heated air from
the carb heat muff.
Some airplanes have an automatic springloaded
door that opens by engine suction in the
event that the air filter becomes plugged. When you
are flying through snow, it’s common for the air filter
to become plugged with impact snow (especially
wet snow). The condition of the door is important
because if it doesn’t open, the engine will quit (this
happened to me personally in the clouds over the
Cascade mountain range). When the door opens,
you’ll notice a slight power loss due to the intake air
being warmer and sheltered inside the cowling. It’s
possible the door can stick, so it’s a good thing to
check it periodically, especially at annual to make
sure it opens properly.
Bring the Heat!
Far more issues arise from not using carb heat,
especially on descent at lower power settings, than
using it too often. Using carb heat doesn’t hurt
the engine, except in truly rare conditions. The
only exception might be in extremely dusty conditions
with severe visibility restrictions, or if you get
caught flying through volcanic ash where the air
filter is very important and is bypassed by most carb
heat systems.
If you are pulling your carb heat knob and not
seeing a significant rpm drop, the system could be
leaking, or your cable could be broken. Leaky air
boxes are remarkably common. One frequently
asked question is, “how much drop should I expect?”
The manual is the best place to start for answers, and
many say to expect a drop between 75 and 150 rpm.
If I was getting less than 75, I would probably have a
chat with my mechanic.
If you are burning auto fuel, some research has
caused Transport Canada to advise extra caution
regarding picking up carb ice. It appears that aircraft
burning auto fuel may be more susceptible to carb
ice than aircraft burning 100LL, due to increased
evaporative cooling caused by the higher vapor pressure
in auto gas.
Set your power deliberately at a specific rpm or
manifold pressure and keep those gauges as part
of your scan. It also helps if you choose a specific
altitude for cruising, so you can tell if an rpm drop is
due to ice or because you are climbing.
If you wait to pull carb heat until the engine has
actually quit, it will be too late for the heat exchanger
to melt the ice. That means the likelihood of getting
power back is pretty low if you don’t catch the ice
buildup early. Sometimes descending to a lower altitude
where the air is warmer works, but terrain has
to allow for that. The bottom line is if you think you
might be getting ice, pull carb heat, watch for an rpm
drop, which is followed by a rise. The engine might
run rough for a little bit.
If you are in the temperature and humidity
envelope in the chart, you are in induction icing
conditions, even if it isn’t raining or snowing. That
means you should suspect carb ice, and take the
steps necessary to prevent an engine failure. Based
on accident reports and information from pilots and
flight instructors alike, there may be a lack of knowledge
about how prevalent icing conditions are. As
a result, pilots aren’t using carb heat downwind in
some airplanes when power is reduced, even when
they are in the blue area of the chart.
Some pilots suggest that applying carb heat
at low power on approach may impact the power
needed for a go around, especially on off-field landings.
Based on the accidents and the science, however,
the bigger risk is not having ANY power due to
carb ice on the go around. You get 95-percent of the
power with the heat on anyway, and it only takes a
second to push the heat closed.
Dave Swartz is the Senior Engineer at the Anchorage Aircraft Certification
office and an active general aviation pilot and airplane owner.
Learn More
NTSB Safety Alert on Carb Ice
http://go.usa.gov/x8Ce4
FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin on
Carburetor ice SAIB CE-09-35
http://go.usa.gov/x8CMh
January/February 2017 FAA Safety Briefing 19

JAMES WILLIAMS
(Not
So)
Mitigating Risk in the Flight Operating Environment
Photo by H. Dean Chamberlain
The enVironment portion of the PAVE (Pilot,
Aircraft, enVironment, External Pressures) risk
assessment checklist addresses one of the pilot’s
most critical risk assessment and decision making
responsibilities. It’s a huge area, because it includes
so many permutations and combinations.
The most obvious risk element is weather, a
powerful and often fickle factor in the equation for
assessing environmental risk for flight. But wait —
there’s more. Other environmental factors include
terrain, obstacles, lighting, airspace, airports, traffic
and probably more. On its own, each factor has an
impact on flight, but it is also essential to assess their
combined impact. It’s a daunting, but very necessary,
task. Let’s take a look at how to do it.
The Whither and Whether of Weather
Nowhere is our human difficulty in dealing with
probabilities on better display than when it comes
to understanding and assessing weather. By its very
nature, weather forecasting is all about probabilities.
What will happen where, and with what certainty?
FAA Safety Briefing Editor Susan Parson
addresses the application of this topic to GA flying in
detail in a previous issue that is well worth your time
(“The Whither and Whether of Flying in Weather,”
July/August 2010 at http://go.usa.gov/x8T9M).
Parson presents the framework developed by Robert
Buck in Weather Flying. To recap, Buck lists three
ways in which weather affects an aviator:
1. Weather can create wind.
2. Weather can reduce ceiling and visibility.
3. Weather can affect the aircraft performance.
Parson recommends evaluating each of these
factors in terms of both the pilot and the aircraft to
be flown. The specific pilot-airplane combination
is a team that, like any team, is only as strong as the
weakest link. When it comes to weather flying, even
the best-equipped airplane cannot make up for a
pilot with deficient knowledge or skill, and even the
world’s best pilot cannot overcome the performance
limitations of a given airplane.
20 FAA Safety Briefing January/February 2017

Making the evaluation that Parson suggests
starts with getting solid weather information. To
get tips on that critical process, I contacted Monica
Bradford, the Flight Service Safety and Operations
Manager of the FAA’s Flight Service Directorate. This
office manages the contract with Leidos (formerly
known as Lockheed Martin).
The world has changed since the days when
a telephone call to Flight Service was your only
option for a weather briefing. You can now visit a
number of government and commercial websites
to get a briefing. “Our data shows pilots primarily
use web-based tools to obtain flight services, with
95-percent of FAA-provided preflight briefings done
via web services,” Bradford explained. “Regardless
of what website they use, pilots should verify
the weather sources. It is helpful to ensure that the
website logs briefing activity and that it can provide
an alert when the data is no longer valid. Pilots are
not required to use FAA-contracted websites, but
www.1800wxbrief.com and www.duats.com both
have FAA oversight.” She also urges pilots to take
advantage of the expertise Flight Service can offer:
“If you are unsure about things you see online, contact
a Flight Service specialist.”
More Than Just a Map
The terrain, or lack thereof in the case of water,
is more than just a pretty scene to enjoy from aloft. It
may or may not impact your thinking and planning.
Is the terrain rough or flat? Is it wooded or open? Is
it densely populated or uninhabited? All of these
things play a role in safely traversing the environment
of your flight. They also potentially impact
factors in other areas of the PAVE checklist, like
equipment or pilot skills. These impacts may be regulatory
in nature, like supplemental oxygen requirements
to get over high terrain. Or they may be more
practical, like ensuring that you have survival gear
when flying over desolate areas or floatation
gear when crossing large bodies of water.
Terrain can also put your piloting skills to the
test. Mountain and bush flying are skills generally
not taught at most flight schools. Along the east
coast, mountains can generally be avoided by simply
flying over them — not a problem
for most GA aircraft. The western
part of the country, though, even the best-equipped airplane
When it comes to weather flying,
boasts peaks that are beyond
cannot make up for a pilot with
the operating capability of most
deficient knowledge or skill,
GA aircraft.
and even the world’s best pilot
Clearly, these factors create
additional risk if you don’t have
cannot overcome the performance
the appropriate training or experience,
not to mention currency and proficiency.
limitations of a given airplane.
Obstacles are another potential hazard in the
flight environment. Most of us have seen thickets
of “airplane stickers,” aka antennas and cell phone
towers which can appear anywhere — including
near airports. When flying in an unfamiliar airport
environment, be sure to study a current chart to note
the location of these obstacles.
The Regulatory Rainbow
Another aspect of the GA operating environment
is airspace and ATC. Here in the nation’s capital, we
have a rainbow of restricted and controlled airspace.
Between Mode C, Class B, Restricted, and Prohibited
airspace combined with a Special Flight Rules Area
(SFRA) and Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ), flying
in the nation’s capital may have you thinking our
Terminal Area Chart (TAC) is something out of an
Onion story.
Another example of complex airspace
is the area surrounding
New York City.
January/February 2017 FAA Safety Briefing 21

New York’s collection of very busy airports, both GA
and air carrier, means that the controllers in center
and approach control need to work and talk very
quickly. This reality can present a problem for pilots
who are less comfortable with the pace of operations.
We provided some tips to help with this in
“Don’t Cower from the Tower,” in our Jan/Feb 2012
issue available at http://go.usa.gov/x8q8K.
Remember that airspace “gotcha” factors can
exist anywhere, or appear in the form of temporary
flight restrictions (TFRs).
Once on the ground, more risk management
opportunities appear at unfamiliar airports, especially
“big airline” facilities with multiple runways
and taxiways.
Careful study reveals that it is all quite manageable
but, again, risk management and decision
making require that you do your homework.
Mitigating Factors
When it comes to environmental risk mitigation
strategies, preparation is key. A great place to start
is with educating yourself at FAASafety.gov. You can
find online courses on a variety of topics from airspace
to weather. You can also search for local seminars
or webinars. In the case of the Washington, D.C.
area, you can also find the required training course
for the SFRA.
There’s another way the FAA Safety Team (FAAS-
Team) can help you. The FAASTeam is made up of
volunteers and FAA employees across the country,
all dedicated to helping improve GA safety. You can
tap into the network of local experts through the
FAASTeam directory on FAASafety.gov. This directory
allows you to search for FAASTeam leaders in
your area or in future destinations. The FAASTeam
Program Manager (FPM) for a certain area is usually
your best point of contact. Be aware that there are
FPMs for both Operations (pilots) and Airworthiness
(aviation maintenance technicians). These FAA
employees can help with advice or direct you to
resources that will be helpful.
I got firsthand experience of this valuable local
knowledge when I contacted FPM Mike Yorke of
Anchorage. “One of the things most visiting pilots
don’t know about is the Alaska Weather Camera
program,” explains Yorke. “The cameras allow pilots
and briefers to get a first-hand look at exactly what
the weather is doing at many airports and mountain
passes. It’s a really great resource and I’m always surprised
how many pilots aren’t aware of it,”
Another thing you can do to assess, manage, and
mitigate risk in the flight environment is to develop
personal minimums. For a short primer on this
topic, check out “Your Safety Reserve” in the March/
April 2015 issue (http://go.usa.gov/x8T9d) of FAA
Safety Briefing or, for still more detail, “Getting the
Maximum from Personal Minimums” in the May/
June 2006 issue (http://go.usa.gov/x8T97).
Another environmental risk assessment aid is
coming soon. Be on the lookout for the FAASTeam’s
forthcoming Flight Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT).
It’s a big world out there — and GA is a great way
to explore it. Just be sure that you carefully evaluate
the flight operating environment before you launch
into the wild blue yonder.
James Williams is FAA Safety Briefing’s associate editor and photo editor.
He is also a pilot and ground instructor.
Learn More
FAASTeam FRAT
http://go.usa.gov/x8mcH
Weather Briefings
www.1800wxbrief.com
www.duats.com
Photo by James Williams
The condition of your runway, whatever it is made of, is an important factor.
22 FAA Safety Briefing January/February 2017

Photo by Paul Cianciolo
PAUL CIANCIOLO
Are We There Yet?
Exploring External Pressures
If you won’t put up with a backseat driver, then why
would you be influenced by a backseat flyer? The
external or social pressures associated with completing
a flight have been associated with a number
of general aviation (GA) accidents. There is almost
always pressure on the pilot to launch, and pressure
to continue. Even the drive to the airport itself can
create pressure to avoid wasted time.
The “E” in PAVE
When you fly with non-pilot passengers, prepare
yourself; they may not say it, but they are thinking it.
Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
If you just rolled your eyes at those words, you were
affected by the “E” in PAVE (the risk assessment
checklist of Pilot, Aircraft, EnVironment, External
Pressures). The “E” here is the external pressure of
“get-there-itis” — or “get-home-itis” depending on
the destination.
“Simply put, get-there-itis is a pilot killer!”
observes Allan Kash, an aviation safety inspector
(ASI) in the FAA’s General Aviation and Commercial
Division. “It’s a classic behavioral trap, which is an
accident-inducing, operational pitfall a pilot may
encounter as a result of poor decision making.” (For
more about this topic, check out “Get-Home-Itis” in
the March/April 2013 issue of this magazine.)
Get-there-itis is often a result of the influence
of your passengers. They tend not to understand the
intricacies of GA flying.
“The biggest external pressures that I’ve experienced
are non-pilot passengers,” notes Kevin Clover,
an ASI and FAA’s national FAA Safety Team (FAAS-
Team) operations lead. “Their general expectation
is that an airplane ride is going to go like a car ride.
They can become irritated and even bored by all the
things that have to be done or considered to get the
airplane in the air.”
What else is one to do without cell service or
WiFi, right? Some people cannot handle the pressure
of being away from their Internet connection, so that
pressure can migrate to the pilot while in the air. This
doesn’t just apply to kids or spouses either. Those
high-powered business types used to making decisions
and taking risks can create a pressure on the
pilot to complete the flight.
“When you tell them there is a safety issue,
they still want to make the decision to go,” explains
Clover, who is a former part 135 charter pilot. “They
can’t seem to separate making a business decision
that involves the loss of money to that of a flight decision
that could involve the loss of life.”
You’re the pilot-in-command, so the responsibility
of a safe flight rests with you, not your passengers.
Motivation to meet a set schedule not under
the pilot’s control will cause pressure on the pilot,
even if flying solo. Significant family events like
family reunions, weddings, funerals, graduations,
athletic events, connecting travel arrangements, and
January/February 2017 FAA Safety Briefing 23

Photo by BJ "Honkey" Lange
Photo courtesy of Civil Air Patrol
Newly certificated pilot BJ Lange (right) prepares his non-pilot passenger and
comical colleague Rocco Marrocco on flight expectations starting with this
preflight selfie. Non-pilot passengers are a major external pressure that can
affect a pilot’s decision making if not adequately handled in advance.
Lt. Col. J. Jerusha McLeod takes aerial photos of flood damage from the
backseat of a Civil Air Patrol Cessna 182 soon after Hurricane Sandy devastated
the New Jersey coast in 2012. Getting these photos to FEMA without delay puts
an external pressure on the pilot to complete the mission, which is a risk that
must be managed to ensure a safe flight.
vacations can cause the perfect internal storm that
pushes you out of your comfort zone.
“In this scenario, pilots can be compelled to take
unnecessary flight risks when making the go, no-go,
decision for that particular flight,” states Marcel
Bernard, an ASI and FAA’s aviation training device
national program manager. “An example would be
departing on a flight in marginal, or forecast marginal
weather conditions when they would otherwise
not go.” Bernard has personally experienced pressure
from his family (passengers) to get home that
day. “I resisted and found a hotel room for the night.
Making the no-go decision was the right thing to do.”
Mission Mentality
Family is easier to say “it’s a no-go” to because
it’s not your job to get to the destination. Your clear
job is to keep your family safe. However, helicopter
emergency medical service (HEMS) pilots have a
unique external pressure due to the critical nature of
their overall mission. The pilot is driven by the goal
— to get a critically ill patient to the hospital. In order
to reduce the effect of this pressure, HEMS operators
do not notify the pilot of the patient’s condition.
This narrows the pilot’s decision making role to one
question: “Can the pickup and transportation to the
medical care center be made safely?” Risking the life
of the entire HEMS aircrew in an attempt to save one
life is not a safe practice.
If you have made the technology leap and are
using a new skysharing app to legally rideshare in the
skies, you have another external pressure to think
about. The goal here is to complete the flight to make
money, which is why a commercial pilot certificate is
required. It provides an added level of safety to counter
external pressures among other things. (For more
about this topic, check out “Why Can’t I Uber My
Airplane?” in the November/December 2016 issue of
this magazine.)
Flying for nonprofits can also influence your
risk-based decision making. Flying to save a dog,
transport a veteran, or search for a missing person
puts the pilot in a mission-first mentality. Civil Air
Patrol (CAP) has recognized this risk to pilots, which
is why the organization requires the completion of
an “Operational Risk Management Matrix” worksheet
before every mission flight. This paper-based
flight risk analysis tool, or FRAT worksheet, assigns
a point value for each hazard that corresponds to
its risk factor. A low risk flight has a worksheet total
of 75 points or less. As the risk value increases, the
flight can be released only by a higher-level officer in
the chain-of-command, which is a valuable control
to prevent accidents.
The CAP worksheet doesn’t strictly follow the
PAVE checklist — the external pressures are the Mission
broken down into two hazards.
1. Operations Tempo: The more aircraft involved,
the greater the chance for collision.
2. Search Complexity: High workload caused by
unfamiliar tasks can add to distractions.
More than four aircraft in the search area is considered
high risk with a 20 point value. The combination
of complex tasks for the aircrew to perform and
the use of technology not routinely used by the aircrew
are considered high risk with a 20 point value.
24 FAA Safety Briefing January/February 2017

If everything else on the worksheet is low risk and
these two high risk items are at 40 points, the flight is
still within the low risk threshold of 75 points.
Photo by Paul Cianciolo
Pressure Popping Principles
Now that you understand what can cause
external pressures and influence a pilot’s decision
making skills, let’s look at how to mitigate those
risks. The use of personal standard operating procedures
(SOPs) is a way to manage it whereas a FRAT
worksheet helps you make the go, no-go decision.
According to the FAA’s Risk Management Handbook
(http://1.usa.gov/18ioRba), the goal with an SOP is
to supply a release for the external pressures with
procedures that can include, but are not limited to:
• Allow time on a trip for an extra fuel stop or
to make an unexpected landing because of
weather.
• Have alternate plans for a late arrival or make
backup airline reservations for the must-bethere
trips.
• For really important trips, plan to leave early
enough so that there would still be time to
drive to the destination.
• Advise those who are waiting at the
destination that the arrival may be delayed.
Know how to notify them when delays are
encountered.
• Manage passenger expectations. Ensure
passengers know that they might not arrive on
a firm schedule, and if they must arrive by a
certain time, they should make alternate plans.
• Eliminate pressure to return home, even on a
casual day flight, by carrying a small overnight
kit containing prescriptions, contact lens
solutions, toiletries, or other necessities on
every flight.
The key to managing external pressure is to be
ready to accept delays. As Bernard puts it: “What
good is it if you die trying to get there?” Clover notes
that the “key is to reset your passengers’ expectations
early.” Let them know it will take some time to
get the preflight done. Let them know that you may
not get to your intended destination today if the
weather changes.
“I mitigate the pressure from my family and
friends through education,” explains Bernard. “I
explain the limitations of flights accomplished in GA
aircraft in advance. — I’m not the airlines, and the
aircraft I fly have significant limitations compared
to the major air carriers using turbojet aircraft. — By
educating potential passengers, in advance, much of
the pressure disappears.”
Remember this: management of external pressure
is the single most important key to risk management,
because it is the one risk factor that can cause
a pilot to ignore all others. It places time-related
pressure on the pilot and figures into a majority of
loss of control accidents, especially on base to final.
So manage your “E” before you take off.
Paul Cianciolo is an assistant editor and the social media lead for FAA
Safety Briefing. He is a U.S. Air Force veteran, and a rated aircrew member
and public affairs officer with Civil Air Patrol.
January/February 2017 FAA Safety Briefing 25

Checklist
SUSAN PARSON
Info Sharing
One of the things my boss likes to say in
speeches is that no matter how competitive the commercial
aviation industry is, we are all on the same
team when it comes to safety. That idea is certainly
one of the foundational principles for Aviation Safety
InfoShare, a semiannual meeting of over 500 air carrier,
government, and manufacturing safety professionals
in a protected environment that facilitates
sharing of safety issues and best practices.
InfoShare is also connected to the Aviation
Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS)
program, which now has access to 185 data sources
that include voluntarily-provided safety data. ASIAS
partners with the Commercial Aviation Safety Team
(CAST) and General Aviation Joint Steering Committee
(GAJSC) to monitor known risk, evaluate the
effectiveness of deployed mitigations, and detect
emerging hazards.
Flight Data Monitoring
To get the benefits of data, though, the first
requirement is to get data — a more challenging
concept in the GA world. As you may have read in
the Jan/Feb 2016 Compliance Philosophy-focused
issue of FAA Safety Briefing magazine (see Tom Hoffmann’s
“In Data We Trust”), the FAA partnered with
industry last year on a Flight Data Monitoring (FDM)
demonstration project for the GA community. The
GA Demonstration Project Team included members
of government, industry, academia, and the GA
community, and the work was conducted in the
Phoenix area given Arizona’s diversity in landscape
and its mix of commercial, corporate, and private
flight operations. The idea was to ask volunteers to
upload de-identified data from their flights, while
giving participating pilots the ability to reanimate
recorded flight track data for post-flight review.
As a next step, the GA Demonstration Project
Team seeks to increase GA participation in the FDM
program by creating a public education campaign
on the safety benefits, assessing the GA community’s
perception and understanding of FDM, and determining
the incentives required to generate a meaningful
level of GA participation in a national FDM
program. As the GAJSC web page notes, the hope
is to develop voluntary GA FDM programs similar
to the airline industry’s Flight Operations Quality
Assurance (FOQA).
Another idea is to hold an InfoShare-like conference
for GA, so as to facilitate communication of
best practices. Stay tuned.
What You Can Do
One of the most important things you can do to
further the safety benefits of information sharing is
to contribute to the Aviation Safety Reporting System
(ASRS). Colloquially known as “NASA forms” since
NASA administers the system on behalf of the FAA,
this program collects voluntarily submitted aviation
safety incident/situation reports from pilots, controllers,
and others. The ASRS database is a public
repository serving the needs of the FAA, NASA, and
organizations world-wide which are engaged in
research and the promotion of safe flight. Using this
information, ASRS identifies system deficiencies and
issues alerting messages to persons in a position to
correct them.
Too many pilots think of ASRS only in terms of
its sanctions relief benefit in the event of an enforcement
action. While this benefit provides a strong
incentive to contribute to the system, the point of
ASRS is to contribute to a safety culture by collecting,
analyzing, and sharing information on issues
and events affecting safety. You can, and you should,
submit a report to ASRS anytime you observe or
experience a safety issue in the National Airspace
System. Online submission makes the ASRS system
easier than ever to use, and speaking up when you
see a safety concern is definitely part of good aviation
citizenship.
ASRS also educates through its CallBack newsletter,
its Directline journal, and through research
studies. To benefit from the extensive shared safety
information, you can subscribe to an electronic version
of CallBack at no charge.
So please, do your part for the aviation safety
team by both contributing to, and benefiting from,
this valuable data.
Learn More
Aviation Safety Reporting System
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov
FAA Safety Enhancement Fact Sheet on FDM
http://go.usa.gov/x8mxT
FAA Fact Sheet on ASIAS Program
http://go.usa.gov/x8mxZ
26 FAA Safety Briefing January/February 2017

Nuts, Bolts, and Electrons
JENNIFER CARON
Assessing Mechanical Risks: An Aircraft with Inop Items
If you are an aviation maintenance technician
(AMT), can you return to service an aircraft that has
inoperative items? The quick answer is yes — and
MEL will explain why.
What is a MEL?
If you’re the typical AMT, you are very familiar
with MEL. MEL is the Minimum Equipment List
for an individual operator’s inoperative items, nonessential
for safe flight. It derives from the Master
MEL, and is specific for a particular make and model
aircraft by serial and registration number. MEL lists
all the equipment on an aircraft type that can be
inoperative at the time of flight, and is the regulatory
authorization that permits operation of the aircraft
with certain inoperative equipment.
The anatomy of MEL is found in Title 14 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 91,
wherein the FAA considers the MEL as a supplement
to the aircraft’s type design. This supplement,
called a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC), is the
approved modification to the aircraft’s existing type
certificate by which an aircraft is considered airworthy.
It is a major change in type design not great
enough to require a new application for a type certificate.
An example of this would be the installation
of a powerplant different from what was included in
the original type certificate.
Under part 91, the FAA considers the MEL as an
STC. Therefore, under an approved MEL, the aircraft
may be operated under all applicable conditions and
limitations contained in the MEL.
Bottom line: a mechanic can return to service
an aircraft with inoperative items under an
approved MEL.
Can I Fly?
And it’s the owner/operator, not the mechanic,
who is responsible for determining the aircraft’s
maintenance status. However, this in no way reduces
the responsibility of certificated mechanics or repair
stations for maintenance functions or tasks they perform
or supervise. Especially when it comes to any
additional or repetitive maintenance that is required
under the MEL.
And although the pilot in command is ultimately
responsible for determining the condition
of the plane as safe for flight, the AMT shares
in that responsibility and makes decisions and
choices about maintenance, as does the pilot on go/
no-go scenarios.
Ultimately
The satisfactory accomplishment of all maintenance
procedures, regardless of who performs them,
is the responsibility of the owner/operator. But all in
all, the AMT is the central figure in aviation maintenance,
and along with the owner/operator, plays an
equally important role in aviation safety.
Learn More
Advisory Circular (AC) 91-67, Minimum Equipment
Requirements for GA Operations
http://go.usa.gov/x89tk
See the Master Minimum Equipment List by
Manufacturer here:
http://go.usa.gov/x8mxR
Photo by Tom Hoffmann
January/February 2017 FAA Safety Briefing 27

Look
LIVES Listen
ARE AT
FOCUS
STAKE!
IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU:
You may accidently takeoff without a clearance
by confusing an ATC instruction such as “Call when ready for departure” or
“Roger” to mean “Cleared for takeoff.”
THE FIX: Write down ATC clearances or make a mental note to only act on
a departure when you hear “Cleared for takeoff.”
28 FAA Safety Briefing January/February 2017
For additional runway safety education, take the AOPA Air Safety Institute’s
Runway Safety online course at www.airsafetyinstitute.org/runwaysafety.

Angle of Attack
TOM HOFFMANN
Assessing Risk in the Palm of Your Hand
One of the most effective ways for a pilot to proactively
assess risk for a given flight is with a Flight
Risk Assessment Tool, or FRAT. They’re simple to
use and many are available as apps on your smartphone
or tablet.
How It Works
Although designs can vary, FRATs generally ask
a series of questions that help identify and quantify
risk for a flight. The FAA Safety Team’s current FRAT
tool (an automated spreadsheet available at go.usa.
gov/xkhJK) follows the PAVE checklist, covering
questions on the Pilot, Aircraft, enViroment, and
External Pressures. For example, you may be asked
how much rest you’ve had, how much time you’ve
had in the aircraft, and what the weather conditions
are for your destination. Based on the answers you
supply, a total risk score is calculated. The score will
fall within one of three risk categories: Green (low),
yellow (medium), and red (high).
With a clear in-the-green score, you might be
tempted to blast off with unabated zeal. Not so fast.
A FRAT is not meant to make your go/no-go decision
for you. It is merely a tool to help you plan your flight
and think through a more complete range of hazards
and risks. When using a FRAT, it’s a good idea to
create numerical thresholds that trigger additional
levels of scrutiny prior to a go/no-go decision for the
flight. For example, a score that’s on the high end of
the green scale may still warrant further analysis. The
pilot should discuss what the highest scoring risks
are and attempt to mitigate those risks.
If your score falls in the yellow, try to mitigate
some of the higher scoring items. That might entail
waiting for the weather to improve or switching to an
aircraft you have more experience with. If the score
is still in the yellow, bring in the opinion of a designated
“contact” person such as a flight instructor
or an FAA Safety Team (FAASTeam) Representative.
They may be able to help think of ways to further
mitigate some of the risks for your flight.
If your score falls in the red zone, you should
seriously consider cancelling the flight unless the
risks involved can be safely mitigated. It’s important
to not allow the external pressures involved with
carrying on with the flight (e.g., attending your son’s
graduation ceremony) interfere with your go/no-go
decision. You (and your passengers) may be disappointed,
but it’s always better to be wishing you were
in the air than wishing you were on the ground!
Introducing the FAAST FRAT
No FRAT can anticipate
all the hazards that
may impact a particular
flight, but there are
some common hazards
that GA pilots encounter
regularly. “Unfortunately,
most FRATs are
operationally specific
to commercial flying,”
says J.B. Williams, a
FAASTeam Operations
subject matter expert in
the FAA’s General Aviation
and Commercial
Division. “They can be
used by a GA pilot, but since they’re not targeted to
that type of operation, they offer a more generic risk
assessment.” That’s precisely why Williams worked
alongside with National FAASTeam Product Manager
John Steuernagle to produce an easy-to-use FRAT
specifically targeted at single pilot GA operations.
“Our goal was to make the FRAT time investment for
pilots short, but still provide all the tools they need to
effectively identify and manage risk,” said Williams.
Among the FAAST FRAT’s standout features is
the ability to capture and send an email of the risk
assessment. This may prove valuable for student
pilots who want to send their instructor a copy
before a flight. Williams is also working on adding
a 180 degree zoom feature that would present an
overhead view of the pilot’s location. This would
help a pilot become more aware of the terrain and
obstacles at an unfamiliar airport. Another unique
element of the FAAST FRAT is a safety resource feature
that automatically pulls safety discussions and
notices from FAASafety.gov.
The FAAST FRAT is now in the final stages
of development and testing. We hope to make
it available on a smartphone or tablet near you
later this year!
Tom Hoffmann is the managing editor of FAA Safety Briefing. He is a commercial
pilot and holds an A&P certificate.
Photo by Paul Cianciolo
January/February 2017 FAA Safety Briefing 29

Vertically Speaking
GENE TRAINOR
Photo by Lynn A. Jensen
Rotorcraft Safety Continuum
As the aerospace industry continues to rapidly
expand and emerging aviation technologies take
hold, the FAA Aircraft Certification Service continues
to maintain its commitment to the FAA’s safety mission
— to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace
system in the world. Fulfilling this commitment
is a continual challenge and requires new ways to
manage people and resources to meet industry’s
demands. A guiding principle transforming the way
the Service does business is the Safety Continuum.
This principle acknowledges that there needs to be a
balance between determining the appropriate level
of rigor in standards, policies, and processes and the
public’s demand and expectations for safety.
The Fort Worth-based Rotorcraft Standards Staff
is embracing the safety continuum principles and
is developing the Rotorcraft Safety Continuum for
Systems and Equipment Policy. The continuum sets
forth a plan to focus our resources into those areas
that present the greatest risk of an accident and in
areas that the public cares about the most.
Currently, the FAA divides helicopters into two
aircraft types: Normal Category (up to nine passengers
and 7,000 pounds) and Transport Category
(More than 7,000 pounds to 20,000 pounds and with
some additional requirements over 20,000 pounds.)
We have no regulations that treat Normal Category
helicopters differently from one another. “More
sophisticated and expensive helicopters with twin
turbine engines have the same safety requirements
as helicopters with the less sophisticated reciprocating
engines,” said Andy Shaw, a Rotorcraft Standards
Staff engineer and an architect of the new policy.
“Most U.S. helicopter accidents occur in Normal
Category aircraft, particularly in the least expensive,
smaller single reciprocating engine models,” said
Shaw. The new policy will facilitate the incorporation
of new equipment that can improve safety, such
as autopilots, into more of those helicopters. It also
intends to help to reduce the cost of buying and
installing the new equipment, especially equipment
that can enhance safety.
“Technological advancements and business
innovation are challenging our old 7,000 pounds
or below weight based regulatory discriminations,”
Shaw said. “We need to find a means to encourage,
practical economic installations of equipment and
innovative production.”
The Aircraft Certification Service is evaluating
a proposal to classify Normal Category helicopters
into four areas: Class I would cover helicopters with
reciprocating engines and five or fewer occupants,
including the crew. Class II would cover helicopters
with single turbine engines, space for five or fewer
occupants, including crew, and a maximum gross
weight of up to 4,000 pounds. Class III would cover
helicopters with single turbine engines, six or more
occupants, including crew, and a maximum gross
weight over 4,000 pounds to 7,000 pounds. Finally,
Class IV would cover helicopters with twin turbine
engines.
Each class would have its own set of standards
and level of scrutiny. For example, Class IV would
undergo a higher level of scrutiny because these
helicopters are the most sophisticated. The goal will
be to have regulations that make installing additional
safety equipment more affordable.
The public will get a chance to view and comment
on the Rotorcraft Safety Continuum for Systems
and Equipment Policy which is expected to
publish via a notice of proposed policy statement
in the U.S. Federal Register later this year. After
comments are considered, the FAA will release the
final policy.
Gene Trainor is a technical writer/editor for the Rotorcraft Directorate in Fort
Worth, Texas.
30 FAA Safety Briefing January/February 2017

Flight Forum
Drone Test Prep
I am pre-registered to take the part 107 Aeronautical
Knowledge test for UAS unmanned aircraft.
Specifically, I wish to fly a drone commercially. The
question I have is how do I prepare for the exam?
What specifically should I be studying? Is there a
study guide or otherwise recommended course of
study? Can’t seem to find this anywhere, thank you.
— Jay
Thanks for your questions, Jay. On the FAA’s
website you can find test prep materials, sample
questions, and study guides for the Remote Pilot
Knowledge Test. Visit www.faa.gov/uas (or click
on the drone icon on faa.gov) to access the Part 107
Knowledge Test Prep page. Suggested study materials
include the Airman Certification Standards (ACS) for
remote pilot, a remote pilot study guide, knowledge
test sample questions, and the Small Unmanned
Aircraft Advisory Circular 107-2. Visit the FAQ page at
www.faa.gov/uas/faqs/#krp for answers to the most
commonly asked questions on aeronautical knowledge
testing and remote pilot certification. I would also
recommend taking the part 107 training course on
www.FAASafety.gov. A link to the course is posted
on the home page. Finally, for more information on
flying your commercial drone, see “How to Fly a UAS
for Your Work or Business” at www.faa.gov/uas/
getting_started/fly_for_work_business.
Where are the Safety Seminars?
Hello — we used to have a lot of safety seminars.
Now — almost nothing. When will you renew it?
— Ziva
Hi Ziva, thank you for your question. The
FAA Safety Team sponsors aviation safety
seminars and webinars throughout the country
each year. To find a safety seminar near you, visit
www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/events/EventList.aspx.
Over and Out
Just got a copy of the July/August
Safety Briefing. On page 2 it says I can go to
http://1.usa.gov/1T1uR8v to get a listing of frequencies
that are being changed. When I try that it takes
me to www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters.
I still can’t find the affected frequencies. What am I
doing wrong?
— Larry
Hi Larry, you are clicking correctly, but here’s a
direct link to the list of frequencies affected by the radio
frequency modification — http://go.usa.gov/x8aHV.
And here’s a link to the MITRE briefing on the effects of
radio reduction by area — http://go.usa.gov/x8a6c.
A Return to PIC
Thank you for the Safety Briefings. I am a 72
year old pilot getting back into flying after a 22 year
hiatus. Just completed a satisfactory flight review.
Your articles are a great refresher for me. Thanks and
keep up the great work!
— Benatech
Welcome back to the skies, Benatech, and
congratulations on your flight review! The FAA Safety
Briefing team works hard to help educate airmen,
and we are very happy to know that our publication
helped in your return to flight. We wish you continued
success!
Facebook Like
I love this magazine and think that every pilot
or future pilot should read it cover to cover. Excellent
information.
— Wilfredo
FAA Safety Briefing welcomes comments. We may edit letters for style
and/or length. If we have more than one letter on a topic, we will select a
representative letter to publish. Because of publishing schedule, responses
may not appear for several issues. While we do not print anonymous
letters, we will withhold names or send personal replies upon request. If
you have a concern with an immediate FAA operational issue, contact your
local Flight Standards District Office or air traffic facility. Send letters to:
Editor, FAA Safety Briefing, AFS-850, 55 M Street, SE, Washington, DC
20003-3522, or e-mail SafetyBriefing@faa.gov.
Let us hear from you —
comments, suggestions,
and questions: email
SafetyBriefing@faa.gov or use
a smartphone QR reader to go
“VFR-direct” to our mailbox.
You can also reach us on
Twitter @FAASafetyBrief or on
Facebook — facebook.com/FAA.
January/February 2017 FAA Safety Briefing 31

Postflight
SUSAN PARSON
Reflection, Refraction, and Reaction
By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by
reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation,
which is easiest; and third by experience, which is
the bitterest.
— Confucius
No doubt you have at some point marveled at
the beauty of a rainbow. If you’re really fortunate,
you might have even seen one from the sky. As you
might remember from elementary school science
class, a rainbow results from the reflection, refraction,
and dispersion of light in water droplets. It
allows us to see all the colors in the spectrum that
normally appear as just plain white light.
As we close this issue on risk management
and decision-making, I’d like to suggest that we, as
pilots, can use the processes of reflection and refraction
to be better, safer aviators. We can use them in
any phase of flight, but I want to focus here on the
benefits they have in the postflight phase. When
you land after a flight,
especially one that
Reflection — the kind you do in your head
involved weather or
— provides the different, slower velocity
other challenges, your
needed to refract the completed flight into first inclination is to
its full spectrum of “teachable moments.” relax. That impulse is
natural, because after
all, the flight is over, right? Ah, but as the late Yogi
Berra famously said, “it ain’t over til it’s over.” The
immediate postflight period is the best time to learn
lessons. Just as a reflection and refraction allow us
to see the full range of colors in the light spectrum,
they also allow us to see the full range of hazards we
faced, decisions we made, and risks we mitigated
during the flight.
Follow effective action with quiet reflection. From
the quiet reflection will come even more effective
action.
— Peter Drucker
For rainbow-producing refraction to occur, a
light wave has to pass obliquely through a medium
with different velocity. For us humans, reflection —
the kind you do in your head — provides the different,
slower velocity needed to refract the completed
flight into its full spectrum of “teachable moments.”
The FAA Aviation Instructor’s Handbook (FAA-
8083-9A) suggests a simple process for guiding the
postflight analysis. Let’s take a look.
Replay. As a first step, mentally replay the flight
from start to finish. Use a camera, an app, or even
old-fashioned pen and paper to capture memories
and perceptions while they’re still fresh. In addition
to capturing pilot performance perceptions, this
activity is also a great way to record all the personal
and aesthetic observations you want to remember.
Reconstruct. The next step is to identify things
you would have, could have, or should have done
differently. I can recall occasions where I wasn’t as
prepared as I should have been. I can also think of
flights that, in hindsight, I should not have taken
at all. The point, though, is not to beat yourself up.
The goal is to make an honest assessment of gaps in
knowledge or skill.
Reflect. Reflection is nothing more complicated
than asking yourself questions about perceptions
and experiences and answering them as honestly as
you can. For example, what was the most important
thing you learned from this flight? What part of the
experience was easiest? What aspect part was the
hardest, and why? Did anything make you uncomfortable?
If so, when, how, and why did it occur?
How would you assess your performance, and
your decisions?
There are three principal means of acquiring
knowledge ... observation of nature, reflection,
and experimentation. Observation collects facts;
reflection combines them; experimentation verifies
the result of that combination.
— Denis Diderot
Redirect. Now comes the time to react — to
consider how the lessons learned on this flight can
be applied to the next trip you make. What lessons
can you use to mitigate risk, or perform better, in the
next cross-country flight? Do you need to adjust your
personal minimums? Did this flight indicate a need
for deeper knowledge, or for sharper skills? If so, how
and when will you take action to close the gaps?
Perhaps more than any other human endeavor,
flying offers endless opportunities for learning and
improving. Use the postflight reflection and refraction
to make the most of them!
Susan Parson (susan.parson@faa.gov, or @avi8rix for Twitter fans) is editor
of FAA Safety Briefing. She is an active general aviation pilot and flight
instructor.
32 FAA Safety Briefing January/February 2017

PAUL CIANCIOLO
FAA Faces
J.B. Williams
FAASTeam Helicopter SME, General Aviation and Commercial Division
Soon after J.B. Williams earned his private pilot
wings at the age of 18, he enlisted in the Air Force
as an air traffic controller. During the next four-plus
years in military service, he used his GI Bill benefits
to earn his commercial pilot and flight instructor
certificates, instrument and multi-engine ratings,
and complete his bachelor’s degree. That allowed J.B.
to attend Officer Training School and obtain a slot in
Air Force pilot training.
“My first assignment after graduating was to act
as an enemy intruder flying the T-33 Shooting Star as
part of fighter pilot/combat controller training,” J.B.
explains. He then went on to train cadets at the Air
Force Academy. “I completed my Air Force career
flying the HH-53 Jolly Green Giant recovering reconnaissance
satellites after they splashed down in the
Pacific Ocean.”
After 10 years of Air Force service, J.B. flew for
Trans Colorado Airlines, and later Continental Airlines,
where he flew the DC-10, DC-9, and MD-80. In
1990, he joined the FAA as an air carrier operations
aviation safety inspector.
“I joined the FAA to broaden my aviation career,”
he notes. “I wanted to see the other side of aviation
and get involved with aviation safety.” J.B. now works
with the national FAA Safety Team (FAASTeam) as
the helicopter subject matter expert (SME) and is the
SharePoint manager who links FAASTeam representatives
to current training documents. He also serves
on the FAA’s Compliance Philosophy Focus Team as
the SME for remedial pilot training.
As the educational outreach arm of the FAA, the
FAASTeam is committed to serving the GA community
and making our skies even safer. It promotes
safety through many different outlets — in-person
seminars, webinars, online education through
FAASafety.gov, and production of safety brochures,
videos, and this magazine. One of J.B.’s projects is the
development of a free Flight Risk Assessment Tool
(FRAT) smart phone application to easily allow any
pilot, especially those just flying for fun, to better
assess the risks before their flights.
“Our mission is safety and reducing the GA accident
rate. The best way to do that is to educate pilots
on safety and risk management.”
The FAASTeam has also been involved in providing
education on small unmanned aircraft system
(sUAS) operations as well as providing certificated
pilots the means to qualify for the Remote Pilot
Certificate by completing the part 107 Remote Pilot
Training Course on FAASafety.gov. Educational outreach
about NextGen and the 2020 ADS-B mandate is
also ongoing; pilots need to understand the importance
of upgrading their equipment to be ADS-B Out
compliant.
J.B. notes that one of the biggest challenges the
FAASTeam faces is reaching the pilots and mechanics
who do not usually participate in or read FAA safety
outreach material. If you are reading this magazine
and have an idea on how to reach those not reading
it or attending safety seminars, send us an email or
a tweet. We all fly in the same airspace, so help us
reach out to our fellow pilots.
“Every pilot is involved in risk management
whether they know it or not,” explains J.B. “Our
advice to GA pilots is to use an organized and repeatable
risk-based decision making process before you
fly to ensure that you are operating at the highest
safety standard.”
If you fly the skies over Cary, North Carolina,
keep a lookout for J.B. He is either working on
or flying his experimental Titan Tornado S every
Sunday. He also volunteers with his local EAA chapter.
You can bet he completes a flight risk analysis
before every flight, even with all that flight experience.
So should you.
Paul Cianciolo is an assistant editor and the social media lead for FAA
Safety Briefing. He is a U.S. Air Force veteran, and a rated aircrew member
and public affairs officer with the Civil Air Patrol.

U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
800 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20591
FORWARDING SERVICE REQUESTED
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
faa.gov/news/safety_briefing
faa.gov/news/safety_briefing
@FAASafetyBrief
Look Who’s Reading
FAA Safety Briefing
FAA Safety Briefing helps
aerobatic champion Patty Wagstaff
go the Extra mile in safety.